Raphael JS 3D effect drop shadow - raphael

I'm trying to make a fairly complex Raphael JS donut graph.
I got several problems, one of them been the 3D effect, which I'm planning to solve by adding 7 drop shadows (glows) or donut duplicates after eachother, to simulate the 7px thickness of the shape.
How could I do this the best way? Thank you in advance...

Seven shadows don't seem like the best way to do it, because it is computationally expensive, because it won't look nice and because one should generally avoid thinking in terms of pixels when working with vector graphics.
If you want to draw a segment of a cylinder -- draw it. Including the sides. Even with solid colour it will create a reasonable illusion of 3d, and you can make it look nicer by using gradients to simulate lighting. You will have to keep track of which faces are actually visible, but that is the case with pretty much any approach to 3D, including the shadow thing.

#KennethB Maybe these plugins could help you: https://github.com/bkuzmic/raphael-charts-plugin and https://github.com/PuffyCoffee/3D-Pie-chart. Download these plugins and study the code, these plugins have MIT license and use Raphael.

Related

Tilemap 2D realistic fluid physics

I'm interested in trying to create realistic fluids (water), for a 2D game. This game is similar to Terraria. I have heard about how you can slap a bunch of colliding particles on the scene and render over it and voila, realistic acting water.
Terraria uses tile based water, which I am not a fan of.. I want something more advanced.
I thought about using bullet 3D physics (box2d has limits I would hit). For non colliding particle effects, I am thinking about using something like SPARK, since I think that'd give me the best of both worlds.
The issue I am thinking about, is that each block is 16x16, so on a 1600x900 scene, there are about 5 thousand tiles.
So I need to tell the physics engine that these tiles are collidable. Of course, there are void tiles that are considered to be non collidable.
Does anyone have ideas on this? Language is C++, I doubt that's relevant though.
EDIT: i think i'm going to have to cave in and use grid based water. I suppose, in retrospect particle based just makes everything more difficult but for what gain?
Your question is about tiled fluids, but you seem to actually be asking about a particle based approach.
If that's the case, what you're looking for is "Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics", or SPH, which is a very popular technique for 2D and 3D fluid simulations in realtime situations.
Yes, it's basically just a particle system, with each particle responding to the forces in your environment (gravity, collisions etc.) in a reasonable (mathematically stable) way, combined with a constraint that they must stay a certain distance apart in order that the fluid is incompressible.
You can render the particles as points, if you have enough of them, or you can use them as a source for deriving a surface (for example using marching-cubes, though in 2D I wouldn't worry about that).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothed-particle_hydrodynamics
It has the advantage of being relatively easy to code, and indeed to accelerate on a GPU.
Indeed I think they're probably a better approach than trying some kind of tile-based approach, and you get some more interesting results, such as spray kicking up, waves kicking against the edges of objects, etc. It's not too hard to get something pleasing working, I'd give it a go.

OpenGL Picking from a large set

I'm trying to, in JOGL, pick from a large set of rendered quads (several thousands). Does anyone have any recommendations?
To give you more detail, I'm plotting a large set of data as billboards with procedurally created textures.
I've seen this post OpenGL GL_SELECT or manual collision detection? and have found it helpful. However it can take my program up to several minutes to complete a rendering of the full set, so I don't think drawing 2x (for color picking) is an option.
I'm currently drawing with calls to glBegin/glVertex.../glEnd. Given that I made the switch to batch rendering on the GPU with vao's and vbo's, do you think I would receive a speedup large enough to facilitate color picking?
If not, given all of the recommendations against using GL_SELECT, do you think it would be worth me using it?
I've investigated multithreaded CPU approaches to picking these quads that completely sidestep OpenGL all together. Do you think a OpenGL-less CPU solution is the way to go?
Sorry for all the questions. My main question remains to be, whats a good way that one can pick from a large set of quads using OpenGL (JOGL)?
The best way to pick from a large number of quad cannot be easily defined. I don't like color picking or similar techniques very much, because they seem to be to impractical for most situations. I never understood why there are so many tutorials that focus on people that are new to OpenGl or even programming focus on picking that is just useless for nearly everything. For exmaple: Try to get a pixel you clicked on in a heightmap: Not possible. Try to locate the exact mesh in a model you clicked on: Impractical.
If you have a large number of quads you will probably need a good spatial partitioning or at least (better also) a scene graph. Ok, you don't need this, but it helps A LOT. Look at some tutorials for scene graphs for further information's, it's a good thing to know if you start with 3D programming, because you get to know a lot of concepts and not only OpenGl code.
So what to do now to start with some picking? Take the inverse of your modelview matrix (iirc with glUnproject(...)) on the position where your mouse cursor is. With the orientation of your camera you can now cast a ray into your spatial structure (or your scene graph that holds a spatial structure). Now check for collisions with your quads. I currently have no link, but if you search for inverse modelview matrix you should find some pages that explain this better and in more detail than it would be practical to do here.
With this raycasting based technique you will be able to find your quad in O(log n), where n is the number of quads you have. With some heuristics based on the exact layout of your application (your question is too generic to be more specific) you can improve this a lot for most cases.
An easy spatial structure for this is for example a quadtree. However you should start with they raycasting first to fully understand this technique.
Never faced such problem, but in my opinion, I think the CPU based picking is the best way to try.
If you have a large set of quads, maybe you can group quads by space to avoid testing all quads. For example, you can group the quads in two boxes and firtly test which box you
I just implemented color picking but glReadPixels is slow here (I've read somehere that it might be bad for asynchron behaviour between GL and CPU).
Another possibility seems to me using transform feedback and a geometry shader that does the scissor test. The GS can then discard all faces that do not contain the mouse position. The transform feedback buffer contains then exactly the information about hovered meshes.
You probably want to write the depth to the transform feedback buffer too, so that you can find the topmost hovered mesh.
This approach works also nice with instancing (additionally write the instance id to the buffer)
I haven't tried it yet but I guess it will be a lot faster then using glReadPixels.
I only found this reference for this approach.
I'm using the solution that I've borrowed from DirectX SDK, there's a nice example how to detect the selected polygon in a vertext buffer object.
The same algorithm works nice with OpenGL.

Stencil buffer VS primitive tesselation

I am learning opengl es and am planning to make a program which will have a shape which can be cut into a smaller shape by removing a part of the shape dynamicly. The constraint is I must be able to tell if an object is inside or outside the cut shape.
The option I thought of are:
1) use a stencil buffer made up of just a black and white mask. This way I can also use the same map for collision detection.
2) the other option is to dynamicly change my mind renderd primitive an then tesselating it. This sounds more complex and is currently my least favorite option. It would also make the collision detection more difficult.
PS
I would like the part of the shape removed to be fall of in animation, I am not sure how choosing any of these methods will affect the ease of doing so. Please express your opinion.
What are your thoughts on this?
Keep in mind that I am new to opengl an might be making mistakes without realizing it.
Thanks, Jason
It is generally considered a good idea to issue only write-commands to the graphics card. Basically that is "dont use glGet* commands at all", because the latency of those commands might be somewhat high.
That said option 1) is great if you just want to mask out stuff. As you are trying to make the cut part fall off this is really not an option, as you have to retrieve/reconstruct the vertices of that part.
I don't quite get the "tesselation" part of your second option, but if your primitive is a polygon and your cuts are straight lines, it is easy to calculate the 2 polygons after the cut. In fact the viewport clipping routine in OpenGL does that all the time and there is a lot of literatur, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland-Hodgman
In the long term it is often way better to first build a (non-visual) model of what is going on in the application before visualizing.

Playing with OpenGL

Just learning the basics of OpenGL for a class and was looking for something challenging and interesting to try and draw. Any suggestions?
Aiming to photorealism (just plain models, lights, materials, textures, etc.) is one thing, but what is even more interesting in my opinion is demoscene and all kinds of non-photorealistic effects. The idea of a demo is to program some nice animated graphics that automatically change from one effect to another or tell some sort of a story, and have a background music. Here you can find some videos. Just take a look at what some others have done and use your imagination. That's the funniest part of 3D programming in my opinion. Of course what you'll first program would be something extremely simple when compared to those videos on youtube, but everyone has to start from somewhere. Simple also doesn't need to be ugly. Some random suggestions:
mathematical shapes with sin(), cos(), etc.
alpha blending, especially addition blending (glBlendFunc(GL_ONE, GL_ONE);)
terrain rendering
read 3d model data from a file. (Wavefront .OBJ is a relatively simple one)
feedback effects with glCopyTexImage2D, which copies pixels from screen to a texture (in real life you shouldn't use this because it's too slow, but when learning the basics it's ok)
etc...
You might consider building an OBJ viewer. You will get the experience you're looking for, and it's a pretty good project for a beginning 3D graphics programmer, in terms of difficulty.
I believe opengl has built in shapes such as a teapot that you can call and have it draw. For starters, I'd stick with easy shapes like squares, circles, and cones. Try drawing a wireframe model first since that's the easiest, by using either quadstrips ,triangles or just poly lines. After you've gotten that down, learn to set up lighting and materials so you can draw a solid model.
At school we had a very interesting assignement to get started with OpenGL that I will share. The long term goal was to modelize a living room so you basically have to draw:
A table.
Two chairs.
A carpet.
A sofa
Some stuff that you might find interesting to add on the table for
instance a TV!
When you have all the things done, try to polish the scene a little bit by adding some lighting effects!
Hint: for all the objects you simply need to start with a basic rectangle. Then you can construct your scene step by step using translations/rotations.

Is there an easy way to get shadows in OpenGL?

I recently created some landscape code and added some diffuse lighting to the scene, however, to my disappointment, there are no shadows. I looked around the web for hours looking for ways to get shadows in OpenGL, however they all seemed terribly complicated; and very unique to their own demo programs.
Are there any simple ways to make shadows?
No. Rasterization is very bad at this (even recent AAA games have noticeable shadow artefacts), but everybody lives with it.
Solutions include (approx. from easiest/poorest to best/hardest) :
No shadows. Simply account for occlusion with darker colors. xNormal, Blender.
If you want an approximate shadow for a character, a simple flat polygon on the ground with a transparent and blurry texture will do. See Zelda screenshots, for instance. Even some recent games still use this.
Lightmaps. Static geometry only, but perfect lighting (precomputed). Reasonnably simple to implement. Lots of tools exist.
Shadow volumes, popularised by Carmack. Pixel perfect, reasonnably simple to implement, quite slow. Good for a few objects. No soft shadows.
Shadow maps. A little hard to implement if you never made any openGL. Hard to get right. Pixellated shadows. Deals with lots of polygons. Doesn't deal with big worlds.
Myriads of Shadow maps variants. Lots of research these recent years. Current best is Cascaded Shadow Maps : Difficult, still hard to make it look good, but fast, deals with loads of polygons and huge worlds.
Raytraced shadows : This may be the next-gen. Nobody really uses that except for some research papers. Very complicated, doesn't do well with dynamic worlds (yet), huge static scenes ok. Pixel perfect or soft shadows, depending on how much spare GPU you have. Several variants; as of 2014 this still didn't make in any game for performance reasons.
So the usual trick is to mix beautiful-but-static-only approaches with dynamic-but-not-that-good approaches. For instance, see my tutorials on lightmapping and shadowmapping.
No.
The easiest way I know of involves using a pregenerated shadow texture that is overlaid onto the terrain using multitexturing. The complicated part is generating this texture, but if you don't use directional lighting, a simple "big blurry dot" is usually better than nothing.